| Submit your comments on this article |
| -Land of the Free |
| Some family doctors ditch insurance for simpler approach |
| 2019-11-21 |
| [Med Press] Dr. Emilie Scott was only a few months into her first job when she started hearing the complaint: She was spending too much time with each patient. Like many primary care doctors working in large medical systems, Scott was encouraged to see a new patient every 20 minutes. But that was barely enough time to talk and do a physical. She eventually quit her job to try a new approach aimed at eliminating many of the headaches of traditional health care: tight schedules, short appointments and piles of insurance paperwork. Instead of billing insurers, Scott now charges patients a $79 monthly fee that covers office visits, phone calls, emails, texts and certain medical tests and procedures. Scott typically sees six patients a day, down from around 30, and spends more time at each appointment. She hired two assistants to help handle paperwork compared with working with a department of billing specialists. This approach —direct primary care—aims to leverage the extra time and money from avoiding insurance into improving care for patients. "As far as our financial success, it does not depend upon having a team of people to figure out how to get money from the insurance company," said Scott, who co-owns a private practice in Irvine, California that serves about 900 patients. Scott said the practice has grown by word-of-mouth, without advertising. In many ways, direct primary care is a return to a simpler time when doctors charged cash for their services. Patients say they appreciate the accessibility and simplicity of the system. But health care researchers question its cost-effectiveness and whether it will ever be capable of serving large numbers of people. |
| Posted by:Bright Pebbles |
| #5 Concierge medicine has been slowly growing since the turn of the millennium. I’m glad it works well for you and your patients, Dr. Titus Thud4344. Question: Are most of your patients in reasonably good health with only the common complaints? How would it work a patient with a rare, chronic condition with co-morbidities that require expensive meds/treatments? What about something difficult to diagnose? And what would happen to you and your patients if, God forbid, single payer became the law? |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2019-11-21 21:18 |
| #4 I joined MDVIP which costs Pts 1650/year with that covering a wellness program so their sick visits, hospitalizations, other consults are covered under insurance. There are 1200 other docs in USA affiliated who will see my patients in other towns if need be. We save Medicare +300,000,000/year by decreasing hospitalizations and other morbidities. Same day visits, 24/7 access and long office visits are thrown in on top so to speak. There IS a light at the end of the tunnel for patients and Docs! It also gives me more time for other pursuits such as being a FS with ANG. |
| Posted by: Titus Thud4344 2019-11-21 14:22 |
| #3 It increases the divide between the haves and have nots. So, it works as intended? |
| Posted by: g(r)omgoru 2019-11-21 12:24 |
| #2 This is happens when government makes something "free". The quality / value diminishes to zero, and anyone who has the means to opt out will. It doesn't even things out. It increases the divide between the haves and have nots. |
| Posted by: Iblis 2019-11-21 12:23 |
| #1 But health care researchers question its cost-effectiveness and whether it will ever be capable of serving large numbers of people. This is how you can tell news stories are "fair and balanced": Any discussion of something that might be good *always* has a big "But..." at the end quoting unnamed experts stating how this might actually be awful. In this particular case, if the business is not cost-effective, patients will leave and Dr Emilie will go broke. As for large numbers of people, is the goal to see and treat patients or just run them thru the system? |
| Posted by: SteveS 2019-11-21 09:31 |